Debates of Nov. 1st, 2023

National Framework for a School Food Program Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the kind of behaviour I have seen from the Conservative Party, first the leader of the Conservative Party refusing to sit down, there seems to be a total disregard for rules and for Speaker of the House. I am starting to get frustrated. This is an important matter: Kids are starving when they are going to school. For some respect for families and kids who are struggling, can we actually talk about children being hungry in schools and stay on topic?

Standing Order 11(2) is constantly being disregarded.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is bringing up a point of debate as opposed to a point of order. There is some flexibility as to relevancy, so we just need to allow the hon. member to continue with her speech for a bit to make sure it does show relevancy.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course I would be surprised if the NDP was not embarrassed by its coalition with the Liberal Party because of the inflation that has been caused—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have already ruled on the point of order. This is now becoming more of a point of debate.

I will allow the hon. member to continue with her speech, and I know there is going to be some relevancy.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex can continue.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try again. At this rate, eliminating the carbon tax by the Bank of Canada—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Pardon me, Madam Speaker, can I please revert back to the page before and start my time, because I have been interrupted about five—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time was stopped for the points of order, and so it has not impacted on the hon. member's time.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, Governor Macklem continued by responding to the second question, which was what the effect on inflation would be if the carbon tax were to be eliminated. He said that it would create a one-time drop in inflation of 0.6%.

If the carbon tax were eliminated, it would result in a drop in inflation of 0.6%. The overall inflation rate is currently at about 3.2%. At that rate, eliminating the carbon tax, by the Governor of the Bank of Canada's estimate, would reduce inflation by more than 18%.

The lead author of Canada's Food Price Report 2023, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, has pointed out that the carbon tax has made business expenses go up. Dr. Charlebois points to “the compounding effect” up and down the food chain, as the supply chain is exposed to increased costs from the carbon tax. Let us take a look at that supply chain and why food is costing more.

The carbon tax increases costs for heating greenhouses, as well as dairy, poultry and hog barns. It increases costs for running the machinery necessary for production operations, especially the cost of electricity. In fact, in 2020, according to Statistics Canada, production costs for greenhouses were up 31.8% above the 10-year average. In 2021, the latest year for which facts are available from Statistics Canada, greenhouse costs were up 9.3% over those of 2020. Electricity costs for greenhouses were up in 2021 by 8.2% over 2020. Other fuel costs were up 7.7% over those of 2020.

In case anybody does not see that this is a problem, Statistics Canada reports that, as of 2021—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord is rising on a point of order.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are incredibly patient. We first rose on a point of order about five minutes ago to ask members to be respectful enough to talk about our colleague's bill, which is an important bill that has nothing to do with the carbon tax. I think that, out of respect for this institution, we should have the member stop her speech. The Conservative party was mocking the Speaker this afternoon by remaining standing for several minutes without speaking, and we are getting pulled back into that same unacceptable thing. Out of respect for the Speaker, the member should be asked to stop.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It seems to me that all of these points of order are more a matter of debate. As I already mentioned, members have some latitude.

I would remind the hon. member that, throughout her speech, she should be mentioning how this is in reference to the bill itself. There is, again, some flexibility, as I have indicated, in the relevancy of how this impacts the bill, which is an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program.

I just want to make sure that the hon. member is aware of that, and that hon. members recognize that there is some flexibility in how we get to the specific bill.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I do appreciate your ruling in that way.

I believe there is an additional point of order on the number of times that my colleague has been interrupted during her speech, which clearly has to do with the price of food in Canada today, one of the underlying reasons.

I would like the Speaker to rule on when it becomes harassment in the House to have constant points of orders interrupting a speech that is clearly on the subject at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Hon. members who are rising on points of order are trying to see where the hon. member is going with her speech. As I indicated, there is some leniency on relevancy. If members remember correctly, it would be good to reference the bill every once in a while. I would ask the hon. member to maybe consider that.

Again, everybody has a right to rise on a point of order. I would just ask the member to bring it back to the bill.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it impacts the bill because, every step along the way, families would not need a government program if they could afford to buy food. If it costs more to put inputs into food for farmers, it is going to cost more for families to buy food for their kids. Why are two million people going to a food bank in a month? They should not need to, and it is because of the policies of the government.

We would not need this kind of program if food inflation were not so high and if the carbon tax were not on everything. It is to the point where people cannot afford to live. Canadians cannot afford to buy food. If it costs overhead to heat greenhouses, and it costs farmers overhead to heat their barns, of course the price of food is going to go up. It is going to be hard for families to afford nutritious food because farmers need to make money too when they are trying to sell their crops. They have to pass that on to consumers.

If anybody does not see that the carbon tax increases the production cost of food, they are choosing not to see it. Again, if it costs the farmer more to grow food, and it costs truckers more to ship the food, then it costs families more to buy food. They should be able to buy food with the money in their pockets that they take home with their wages, but the government is making it unaffordable for families. We would not need this government program if families could afford to buy their food.

Families are seeing unaffordable price increases on the food they buy for their loved ones year over year. Almost daily I am hearing in my office from folks, young and old, who are having difficulty getting by. Many do not have enough to buy their groceries or pay their heating bill, their rent or their mortgages, and more families are visiting food banks. Food bank usage hit another record high in 2023 with two million people using a food bank in a single month. Two million people cannot eat and satisfy their hunger with fluff reports or studies.

Canadian consumers face inflation on food at 8% to 9% year over year. Again, 20% of Canadians report skipping a meal each day. What they need is lower grocery prices so they can afford to feed their families. Meanwhile, the government just wants to tax to the max with two carbon taxes plus HST. It is enough. Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister and a government that just seems to be going through the motions.

The Prime Minister can deny all he wants, but Canadians know that inflation is real. The Governor of the Bank of Canada also said something last Monday at the finance committee about how government spending affects the ability of the Bank of Canada to bring inflation down. The Governor indicated that government spending makes it more difficult for the Bank of Canada to hold the line and bring the inflation rate down. As a result, monthly mortgage payments for Canadian families are rising when they renew their mortgages. Their mortgage interest rates are almost double or more to what the interest rate was to their previous renewal.

High taxes, increased red tape and bureaucracy have driven investment out of Canada, causing our economy to slide each year with a continued low Canadian dollar, making everything bought from our largest trading partner, the U.S., more expensive. Canada is on track to be one of the most unproductive and least prosperous countries in the OECD.

The International Monetary Fund listed Canada as having the sixth-worst misery index out of 35 industrialized countries. Simply put, the higher the score, the worst the economic situation. Canada scores the sixth highest, but the NDP and the Liberal Party do not want to talk about any of this. They want to make it appear as though they are helping, even though the NDP and the Liberals are the cause of unaffordable prices and people's misery.

That is why the Leader of the Opposition, along with those on this side of the House, have been holding the Prime Minister and his government to account for spending and inflation. Can there be any doubt? It is time for a real change from the inflationary, all-too-costly coalition of the NDP-Liberal government.

To sum up, Bill C-322 is better suited to be put forward in a provincial legislature than in the national Parliament. However, if the member for Acadie—Bathurst is truly serious about helping Canadian families afford nutritious food for their tables, he should persuade his colleagues to reduce food costs by axing the carbon tax.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, children are a national treasure; they are our greatest asset. They are the adults of tomorrow, and it is our duty to help them reach their full potential so that society is better off in the future than it is now. Every generation since the dawn of time has set itself the goal of ensuring that the next generation lives a better life. We must not fail in our duty.

This will come as a surprise to no one, but eating is an essential need. Once again, I am going to talk a bit about Maslow's pyramid. This pyramid explains many of the choices we make in life. It must also be an intrinsic element of our thinking when we have to make decisions like the one concerning this bill. It brings our focus back to what needs to be considered, what must be important. At the base of this pyramid are the basic needs of housing, clothing and food.

If any of these needs is not adequately met, a person cannot move on to the next level, which is safety. The other levels, belonging, esteem and self-actualization, will not be met either. A child who goes hungry in the morning cannot concentrate. A child who goes hungry in the morning is often sad, sometimes aggressive and sometimes apathetic. The effects of these emotions can make it hard for these children to make friends or socialize at school. Such difficulties directly undermine a child's self-esteem, as well as the goodwill of the people around them. Such feelings and difficulties can undermine a child's trust in the people around them, especially those whose job it is to protect them, like parents and teachers.

If a child feels unsafe at school, they cannot achieve their potential. It is very difficult. Becoming fully engaged in what we have to do is harder if we are hungry because that is all we can think of.

I was a teacher for 18 years. During those 18 years, I also coordinated the “Stratégie d'intervention agir autrement”, or new solutions intervention strategy.

Disadvantaged communities are communities that are economically or culturally disadvantaged. A culturally disadvantaged environment means that there are people in the family who have not reached the fifth year of high school. Studies show that when there are people in the family who have not reached the fifth year of high school, it is difficult for them to promote and value education. These people also often struggle financially, as the two often go hand in hand.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked why some schools did not have food support. As part of the “Stratégie d'intervention agir autrement”, or new solutions intervention strategy, we wanted to set up a kitchen in a small school so that young people could not only eat, but also learn to eat well. It cost tens of thousands of dollars to set up the kitchen, and there was no guarantee that anyone would be there to help the children.

The school was in a disadvantaged community, and its socio-economic index was 10 on a scale of one to 10. This gives an idea of the situation. A community is considered disadvantaged when it has a rating of eight, nine or 10. That one had a score of 10, and we could not even set up something as essential as a kitchen, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I have seen the consequences in the short, medium and long terms of children in our society going without food. In a society as wealthy as ours, a lack of food does not necessarily have the same consequences as it does in Yemen, but there are consequences nonetheless. We can talk about fatigue. It is simple, when we do not have enough fuel, we get tired. We can talk about irritability, impatience, troubles concentrating, dizziness and headaches. This can escalate to aggression or cardiac arrhythmia. In girls, it can lead to amenorrhea, or the absence of menstruation.

Some might say that some people do not need to go without food to feel these symptoms. That is true. However, all these symptoms combined are a big indicator. We see these symptoms often so we forget this exists. We dissociate, saying it is a fact that this causes fatigue, it is a fact that young people are aggressive.

Il will provide an example. This is a true story. I am not going to name names, but I am certain everyone will understand why. In my 18 years of teaching, I saw it all. How did I find out about what I am about to share? There came a point when I started to notice things and ask questions. Then, I listened. This person's family situation changed quite suddenly. Finances were getting very tight, and this person realized that there was not much food in the cupboard. She would skip meals to make sure the rest of the family she lived with could eat for the rest of the week. She either did not eat breakfast or had a piece of fruit. Lunches were non-existent, except for a piece of bread from the cafeteria, which I call “plastic bread” because it is packaged and not particularly fresh. She would eat small portions at supper so that other family members could use the leftovers the next day for their lunches.

At the same time, this person, a girl, was experiencing major physical changes. When she stopped eating nearly altogether, she was tired and emotionally fragile, on top of what she was going through with her family. When she was a teenager, certain individuals began insulting her. I am talking about kids with behavioural problems, who do not think before they speak. These people started calling her fat and “fatso” because she had a large frame. That is the kind of thing she was dealing with. Because of this problem, on top of thinking that she had to skip meals so her family could eat, she started to hate her own body.

If she had been able to eat, she probably would have had the strength to tell the others to mind their own business. She could have told them that she was growing up and had a woman's shape, while others were still little girls. She would have had that temperament. She did not have it, however, because she was not eating. In the end, this led to an anxiety disorder and even hospitalization. As an adult, her issues with body image worsened and would not go away. A problem as trivial as skipping a meal because there is not enough food at home to feed everyone can turn into a much more serious psychological problem in adulthood.

I want to reassure my colleagues that I still see this person and she is doing well. She has turned her life around. She has a family and a good job. Sometimes her demons rear their ugly head again and she does not like what she sees in the mirror, but she is proud of the progress that she has made and of the fact that she now has a family who does not have to go through what she did. However, there is always that part of her that fears that something will go wrong and her family will have to experience what she did.

My colleague's bill is a very good thing for young people across Canada who need food aid and support at school. School is a great place to get that help. In fact, healthy eating is part of education, socialization and even the school's mandate. However, there is the matter of the Constitution, and health and education fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The bill is very worthwhile, but it is missing a sentence, a provision.

The bill's preamble recognizes that the bill affects areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I am aware of that. It is written in the preamble. However, a provision is needed that gives Quebec and the provinces the right to opt out with full compensation if they want to run their own school food program.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. My colleague for Vancouver Kingsway and I put forward a similar bill in this Parliament, to push forward a school food program for children.

This is something that has been called for by experts and advocates for a long time, for many years, to develop a national school meal program. Canada continues to be one of the few industrial countries to not have such a program or national standards. We actually ranked 37th out of 41 wealthy countries, in terms of providing schoolchildren with nutritious food, according to a 2017 UNICEF study.

In fact, if we add first nations communities, which are often left out of these statistics, Canada falls even further behind. That is shameful in a country as rich as Canada.

Prior to teaching at university, in the faculty of education, where I taught for many years, I actually taught in schools. I taught in an inner-city school. As a new teacher, I noticed that the kids in the classroom where I was teaching had sometimes significant behavioural issues.

I then realized what the root of the problem was. It was that the kids going to school in my class were hungry. They could not learn. Their learning was impaired. Because of their hunger, they became disruptive in the classroom. Therefore, one of my first lessons as a new teacher, to control behaviour in my classroom, was to ensure that kids were not hungry.

I put in a toaster with bread, granola bars and apples. I did not make the kids ask for food. I respected their dignity. I respected the dignity of their families, who were doing the best they could at the time but could not afford food.

This is not a new problem. Besides what Conservatives try to pull, indicating that this is a new problem, it was under a Conservative government, in fact, that my kids in the classroom were going to school hungry.

It is about a dilapidated, archaic social safety net that is keeping families further behind. One reason I put forward a bill for a guaranteed livable basic income is that, in a country as rich as Canada, nobody should go to school hungry. That was Bill C-223, the same bill that Senator Kim Pate put forward on her side.

This basic human right to food security should not be denied to anybody, especially children, whose learning is impacted in schools when they are literally starving. Having put a toaster in my classroom and having bread and fruit, I noticed that, instead of being disruptive, the kids were attentive. Instead of feeling demoralized by having to share that there was not enough food in their home, they could, with dignity, just eat.

I said to them, if they were hungry, they could just take food. I need snacks all the time. We get hungry. They could just help themselves. I made sure to have this in my classroom.

Boy, what a difference I saw in these bright, dynamic, inspiring, courageous young people. They had so many barriers, it was amazing they made it to class, let alone having food security, a basic human right, being a barrier to the learning that they were trying to do in my classroom.

As I said, no child should attend school on an empty stomach.

The Liberals first promised this national school program in 2019. Four years later, thanks to their colleague, they put forward a private member's bill, but they still have not delivered. Kids still go to school hungry.

The Conservatives are completely silent on the issue. In fact, in this debate today, instead of fighting to ensure that kids do not go to school hungry, they make everything about oil and gas. I stood on a point of order about that earlier, because it is unacceptable that, on the backs of kids' human rights, we take this time to politicize kids' hunger. It infuriates me today that even when we are talking about kids' hunger, we are talking about oil and gas.

The New Democrats have been on this page long before the Liberal promise and this bill, and we are going to keep advocating for the creation of a national school food program that ensures that every child and every family will have access to nutritious, healthy food. This can be done by addressing gaps in our social safety net, gaps that have not kept up with inflation and leave families behind. We very often politicize issues in this place, to my disappointment and certainly to the disappointment of families in Winnipeg Centre, which competes for the highest child poverty rates in an urban centre in the country. We need to make time for them. That is our job in this House: to fight for those who have elected us.

We know that EIA rates have not kept up. Now families, more than ever, are choosing between food and rent. They are experiencing, for the first time, being unsheltered and, as a result, having to literally depend on food banks to get fed. This is unacceptable. We should never need food banks, because people should always be given enough to have their basic human rights met. We have a Constitution in this country, which says that everybody should live with security and in dignity. This is a principle, a fundamental law in our Constitution, which we fail to uphold. We need food programs in schools right now; the NDP will support the bill, but the Liberals need to put it in place.

So many children in this country are going hungry. There are certain kids in this country who, depending on immigration status, do not even get the Canada child benefit and are even more hungry. There is a human rights case on this. We need to address the issue of poverty. We cannot constantly politicize human rights in this place. Not everything is a political sound bite. Not everything needs to get in the media. Sometimes, we need to be in touch with our basic humanity, especially when we are talking about the hunger of children in this country. This is the reason I felt a need to rise on a point of order in the House. This is an issue that we should not even be debating right now.

We should not delay. I want to congratulate the member on putting forward this bill. I want him to know that my party will be supporting it. I hope the Conservatives, if they are so worried about families, support this bill, make sure that we update the social safety net, stop with the sound bites and make sure no child in this country ever goes to school hungry.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

International Trade

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am continuing a speech I was able to start a few days ago. I would like to start from the beginning, but quickly, and present a chronology of the whole ArriveCAN affair.

On April 29, 2020, the government launched the ArriveCAN app nationwide. It then took several months for it to make the app mandatory, which happened on November 21, 2020. This meant that anyone re-entering Canada from that point on had to register and use the ArriveCAN application. Everyone who left the country and returned to Canada realized that the ArriveCAN app was not very sophisticated.

On October 24, 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency announced the costs of the application on its website. We are talking $55 million over three years. Costs totalled more than $55 million over the three-year period from 2020 to 2023, including $80,000 for the first mobile version of the app and $8.6 million for more than 70 updates to the app and the related website. It is worth nothing that 70 updates is a lot, especially for an app that, on the whole, is pretty straightforward. Another $7.9 million was spent on data management and $6.4 million on data storage and cloud services. That is a lot of money. That is the first observation.

Second, on October 31, 2022, pursuant to a motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Canada Border Services Agency provided an updated table of non-salary expenditures related to ArriveCAN, along with the names of the companies contracted to develop the app.

On November 2, 2022, one year ago tomorrow, the House voted in this very chamber to adopt the motion calling on the Auditor General to investigate and audit the ArriveCAN app. I point out that this motion was adopted by a majority in the House of Commons, but not unanimously.

On January 23, so about two months later, when the Prime Minister was asked about it, he replied that the contracting process for ArriveCAN had been illogical and inefficient.

On October 4, 2023, so just under a month ago, two articles in The Globe and Mail reported allegations of misconduct in the Canada Border Services Agency's IT contracting process.

On Thursday, October 12, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have the pleasure of sitting, convened an emergency meeting to ensure that the information gathered by The Globe and Mail would be taken into consideration by the Auditor General, who, I would remind the House, is to conduct an audit on the matter. The chair of our committee explained that he convened that meeting following the announcement of an RCMP investigation into allegations of misconduct in the contracting process.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of background noise. I would like to be able to deliver my speech in a more conducive environment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that it was unintentional and that the member in question is sorry.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the look I gave was enough.

As I was saying, the audit report of the Auditor General of Canada was expected to be presented this month. However, because of new allegations made in the newspapers, the Auditor General of Canada told us during the special committee meeting that she would be extending the deadline for her audit into the winter.

I will briefly summarize the main points of the article, which is very interesting. I have to point out that a healthy democracy needs this kind of real investigative journalism. Two IT experts from the Botler company say they witnessed dubious or at least questionable practices in the procedure used to allocate public funds for software development contracts. Specifically, they received money from a contract that they had not even signed and that had been signed without their knowledge. That is serious.

There were also ties to CBSA staff, and the GC Strategies firm is being particularly hard hit by the potential scandal.

GC Strategies, the consulting firm, has been singled out. It has not yet been charged, but is potentially being charged with transferring data to third-party, unknown companies that are potentially dubious once again. We are talking about personal data. People who travel and put personal information on a government platform expect their data to be respected. We know that potentially dangerous data transfers have occurred.

This controversy is in addition to the $54-million price tag for the ArriveCAN app last year. As I said, the first thing is that there was a very high price tag for a rather simple app. On top of that, the contracts that were awarded to companies for developing this app are especially dubious. We are very much looking forward to seeing the report of the Auditor General of Canada.

I would like to mention one last thing about the special meeting that we had. The Globe and Mail reported that the Canada Border Services Agency received warnings about the questionable ties between the IT consultants and some federal public servants, so people at the CBSA had the information. What happened is that they decided to launch an investigation themselves on their end. We know that the RCMP and the CBSA launched investigations at the same time as the Auditor General of Canada's audit.

What comes next is very important. During the special meeting that was held about the ArriveCAN app, during which we spoke to the Auditor General of Canada, I asked her the question and she answered that she was not even aware that those investigations were taking place. The Auditor General herself was not informed of the fact that government agencies and departments were conducting an investigation on their end, when that is her job and she had been mandated by the House to conduct an audit. There was no communication there.

It is rather typical of the government not to consult interested parties, but it is rather inappropriate that it did not inform the Auditor General of Canada that it was conducting its own investigation into a potential scandal.

From day one, ArriveCAN has been a clear example of government incompetence. Before even knowing that the RCMP was investigating allegations of criminal misconduct in the awarding of contracts, we already knew that the app cost a lot of money.

Nearly a year later, we find out other things from the article in The Globe and Mail. The Auditor General of Canada confirmed that she is not aware of an investigation being conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency and by the RCMP. When the articles came out, we were able to hold a special meeting. However, the report of the Auditor General of Canada still not having been published, we wonder why the focus on wanting to talk about this app.

It goes without saying, but we think that the Auditor General should carry out her work with the collaboration of all the departments. Given that she is mandated by Parliament, we expect the Auditor General of Canada to present her report so that we can get to the bottom of things and find out what happened with ArriveCAN. We know that there were some questionable actions, but we do not know exactly what happened. A professional person and third party needs to conduct the investigation and settle the matter.

We are dealing with a government that voted against the motion calling on the Auditor General to conduct an audit. On the face of it, that does not look good for our current democracy. Meanwhile, motion after motion is moved, and we are currently debating a third-party committee report about an app when the Auditor General is already investigating the matter.

We cannot help but wonder what the Conservatives are up to. Are they trying to block the work of Parliament? That is what I am wondering, and that is what the folks in my party are wondering. We would like to move on to serious matters and get to work.

The Conservatives' actions today are not worthy of a party that wants to be in power. At the end of the day, we are the only ones acting responsibly in this Parliament.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take issue with my colleague's comments on our role as the opposition.

In fact, I called for, at the international trade committee, the study of ArriveCAN in the winter of 2022. That is why we are here today. It is because of the negative impacts that application had on the tourism community. We lost two years because of COVID. We lost a third year of tourism because of the ArriveCAN app and its implications for the tourism sector.

What were the impacts on the tourism community in your riding? Why is it that you are criticizing us for wanting to continue to raise and alleviate the concerns we are trying to look at with the tourism sector?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.